Why are English commentators so much better than Americans?

I think this notion that the English commentators are so much better is pretty much a fallacy. One improvement is that they are on camera far less than the American commentators (like hardly ever) but I've heard quite a lot of their reportage on Universal Sports, and they make a huge amount of mistakes - wrong IDs and missed calls, still talking about something that's going on when it's no longer going on and someone else has in fact taken over the race. They get in the WAY less than their American counterparts, but they're nothing terrific.

To you they are. To the rest of America those limeys are a bunch of cowards and buggers who can't fight for shit in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Cpmmentary on the Eurosport is from Tim Hutchings - 13.11 5k - and Martin Gillingham - 49 sec 440m hurdler. Being an ex-athlete doesn't always guarantee being a great commentator but these two guys do know their stuff and are very passionate.

The guy from the 70s and 80s you are referring to is David Coleman who had been a decent club runner when younger. He had a background in journalism and was a respected commentator across all sports but his first love was athletics - sadly towards the end of his career he did lost it a little.

Currently on the BBC for distance events we have Brendan Foster and Steve Cram - Foster is generally considered a bit rubbish and spends most of his time plugging his 'Great Run' series. Cram on the other hand is pretty knowledgeable and makes a pretty good stab at things. The best commentator on the BBC is probably Paul Dickinson who covers the field events.

Undeniable truths:

1) The British accent automatically makes the commentary seem more intelligent. This is why Americans think Liggett and Sherwin are great cycling commentators when in reality they are absolutely miserable.

2) The overall presentation on Universal Sports (or on any real British feed) is an order of magnitude better than the packaged crap that gets put on NBC in the US. They strive to show as much of the action as possible and will only cut away from a running event to show a live field event. During the WCs, the BBC used a split screen in those instances so that you could always see the track race.

3) The US commentators with a distance running background are coached to dumb down their commentary such that an American with no clue about distance running (who, btw, isn't watching the damn meet) would be able to better relate. Compare that to Cram, who is given the freedom to discuss tactics, interpret splits, and talk about the race on a level that runners comprehend.

4) Tom Hammond blows. Yes, all the US commentators are awful, but Hammond makes it impossible for even a quality distance color commentator to get in thoughts about the race. Hammond calls track and field like a horse race. He is constantly spitting out "XX in the lead, followed by XX, XX, and XX." He does this every hundred meters. He interrupts the other commentators to do so. He thinks we don't have the attention span or intelligence to recognize the leader or remember the leader for longer than 15 seconds. He can't put the race into context. He frequently takes so long to spit out the top 5 that it has changed by the time he finishes. Which is fine, because he's usually so wrong that the change may make him right.

Coleman was one of the few who could actually convey the emotion of the race. One of my old coaches, Walter Hesketh ran with him in the National country for Manchester AC team which got 3rd (Walt won the race beating Gordon Pirie into 2nd!)

You need to either know the sport or do research. There is an anchor woman for the BBC in recent WC's. I'm pretty sure she has no background in athletics, but she was asking her (former athlete) colleagues very imformative questions. Research and being professional

Its not a question of being American either. MJ does studio analysis and commentary and is excellent. Not only does he have his athletic experience, he has the intelligence to look at questions in different ways

From what I have heard they are picking commentators in US who do not have the athletics knowledge (probably because T&F not covered much) and have not done their research. Maybe they stuggle to find someone with the knowledge; added to the polish required to be a presenter -

+Did you notice the guy calling the Ritz surge - Hutchings 4th in the Olympics himself & 2 x Silver in the world cross

Studies show that American viewers change the channel more quickly when news is reported with a non-American accent. TV Producers thus always choose local annoucers for their shows.

Which one of them cannot pronounce Bekele properly? I think its Brendan Foster. Pisses me off so much!

ukathleticscoach wrote:

Its not a question of being American either. MJ does studio analysis and commentary and is excellent. Not only does he have his athletic experience, he has the intelligence to look at questions in different ways

This is a good point. It would be interesting to see him do some work in the US, because my suspicion is that this goes beyond the actual commentator. It has to do with producers, how the commentators are coached, etc. MJ in the US might suck because they might continually tell him to dumb it down.

The American commentators THINK they are catering to the American public. Over the years, the style (in all sports) has developed that the announcers don't "call the game" they talk way to much about crap.

I like Louis Johnson, I think he has knowledge, but listen to him ramble on about garbage while positions change and splits go by.

Ryan Foreman wrote:

I was just watching a replay of Ritz's race on the Universal sports sight.

so did i. actually also I Watched the whole meat on CBC on saturday.

What bugges me most was that nearly all participants were wearing the same pink outfits making it impossible to tell who was whom. a big problem the not-on-the scene commentators like smith and the other guy who were commentating from toronto studio.

runn wrote:

I like Louis Johnson, I think he has knowledge, but listen to him ramble on about garbage while positions change and splits go by.

It's abundantly clear that the US color commentators have written notes for each race, and they will get those points in even if it means completely ignoring what is happening on the track.

English commentators do their homework and come well prepared to call a race. They know who the runners are, what their backgrounds are and generally what is at stake in any given race. In short, they are professional. I cant really figure out what the heck the American commentators are all about or why we cant rise to the same standard. The contrast really is very obvious.

I thought that the English commentators were very good at the World Championships. Head and shoulders above the American broadcasters, no question.

Their enthusiasm and empathy for the athletes came through loud and clear as people who love the sport itself.

The one odd thing, though, was that they tempered their enthusiasm for the British athletes to such an extent - probably wanting not to come across as the hometown rooter -

that their own performances (such as Dobriskey's second place) would be flatly stated between gushes for the other athletes.

All in all, though, I thought the announcers did a great job and were very generous in acknowledging the efforts of the American athletes.

backwards wrote:

Undeniable truths:

1) The British accent automatically makes the commentary seem more intelligent. This is why Americans think Liggett and Sherwin are great cycling commentators when in reality they are absolutely miserable.

what exactly makes them miserable? the fact that you can't stand cycling for 4 hours while listening to two guys who actually know the sport....something that never happens in t+f

english (lower case intended) society requires that announcers assume the fans are english dumbshits that don't know anything about the sports being covered. American announcers assume that American viewers are informed and knowledgeable about the sport being covered. I like the American announcers since they don't bore us with already known information and useless repetitive facts pre-written by hired TV spotters like myself.

Could also be that T and F ranks somewhere below bass fishing and NHRA drag racing in the US sports marketplace. If you turned on European coverage of Euro League basketball it would be similar.

The people they "convince" to be commentators are either former track stars with very little success or skills as a commentator or 3rd and 4th rung commentators just looking for the paycheck. IE: they either care and don't know how to convey anyting or they just don't care.

Did you notice the track fans? Very intestested in the race, very well behaved. That wouldn't fly in the US. Been to a baseball game lately? I went to a single-A game last night and they had tons of crap going on between inning and DURING the game almost interrupting pitches. Kids were running around, beer was everywhere. It was entertainment.

People are motivated most by pleasure or pain. Sell beer, crap food, or have have nekkid ladies running around and track would be popular and then ESPN will at least send their B team. Very rarely will you have a sport that sells itself strickly by the sport alone. College football and basketball I think are the only two that really sell themselves by the sport alone. People are damn right vicious when it comes to college affiliations.

Alan

NBC TV Spotter wrote:

english (lower case intended)

You intended to begin your sentence with a lower case letter?

I also noticed that the commentators on Universal Sports didn't pay too much attention to UK athletes, and actually seemed to be focusing on US athletes in the distance races quite a bit. They seemed to be perving on all the hotties in the women's 1500 too, or maybe that was just me

It's because the British commentators are not trying to be commentators, they are track and field fans that just talk about the races as they are happening and everything is natural and from the heart.

American commentators are trying to be just that, commentators. They are to concerned with being too professional, or proper, and following all the guidelines of commetator school, and that comes off as bland, uninteresting, boring, and personally for me it's a turnoff.

For me the British commentators on Universal are much more personable and it feels like a friend or someone I know is just telling me what's going on. Plus I get to see more of the races instead of the faces of Ato Boldon, Dwight Stone and that Lewis lady.